Meredith Willson's The Music Man

When I was in the eighth grade, my high school put on a production of "The Music Man". While it wasn't the first musical I had ever seen on an actual stage (that honor went to my high school's production of "My Fair Lady" the year before), "The Music Man" quickly became one of my favorites and still remains so. The songs seemed so unusual to me as to be almost magical: the vocal trickery of "Rock Island"; the seamless blending of "Lida Rose" and "Will I Ever Tell You"; the folksy humor and give-and-take of "If You Don't Mind My Saying So". It was just like nothing I had ever seen before. My enjoyment of this music was also in large measure enhanced by a music teacher in eighth grade who set aside a class period to play us the soundtrack and, most importantly, EXPLAIN IT! His footnotes still sometimes run through my head when I listen to the Broadway soundtrack, which I promptly went out to buy after seeing that high school production.Yet, when I watched the 1962 film version with Robert Preston, I came away rather disappointed. Over time, and several retries at viewing this movie (most recently on Turner Classic Movies), I've concluded that film seems to suffer from what so many other film adaptations of musicals from that time also suffer from: making changes in all the wrong places. In this case, they add scenes that are unnecessary and distracting (the scene at the beginning with Mrs. Shin in the lbrary is an example). The filmmakers also seemed to miss golden opportunities that would have made for good use of film (the performance of "Lida Rose/Will I Ever Tell You" is a static, almost split screen presentation and has a rather blah production value). And what's up with the lights going off in the background during some songs?! This isn't the stage, it's film!So when I started watching the 2003 TV remake of "The Music Man" with Matthew Broderick, I was hoping it would not be a disappointing retread of 1962. I didn't have much to worry about though; when it originally aired in the winter of 2003, a winter storm knocked out my cable after the first 20 minutes and I didn't get a chance to see the rest of it. Thinking for many years this movie was lost to the land of "TV never to be aired again", I was delighted to see it show up earlier this year on the Hallmark Channel, and even more pleased to find it had been released on DVD.Simply put, the 2003 production does what the 1962 film should have done. It's production value is far more imaginative and makes excellent use of film technique and imagery. River City seems much more like a city; the people more two-dimensional and real. There's an overall sense of fun here that was missing in 1962. The performances from Broderick and, most importantly, Kristen Chenoweth, really help elevate this movie to being something so much better than the original. Chenoweth especially shines in this production with "My White Knight", a song originally cut from the 1962 film (yet another strike against the original film). The dance numbers are much more energetic and fun to watch, especially during "Marian The Librarian". I especially like this number's added bonus: Chenoweth going up a straircase with Broderick being at the bottom only to show up ahead of her at the top of the stairs in the very next cut. The look Chenoweth gives to the camera is priceless! Yet, many of the dance numbers in 1962 seem stilted and programmed, and none more so than this song.Another quality that makes 2003 superior to 1962 is that of casting. While the casting in 2003 may not boast high star quality (it was for TV after all), it does match actors that are well suited for their characters. Besides Broderick and Chenoweth, Victor Garber is delightful as Mayor Shin, especially in his attempts at dancing and public speaking. Molly Shannon also turns out to be an excellent fit in the role of Mrs. Shin, and this is perhaps the true surprise of the 2003 version.By comparison, Shirley Jones and Ron Howard being in the 1962 film makes it look (in hindsight anyway) of a TV special from the 1960s gone all wrong. Buddy Hackett also doesn't bring much to the table; he was a funny comedian, but he was more suited for "The Love Bug" films or "Mad, Mad World" where his comic talent was put to far better use. His humor is almost nonexistant in the 1962 production, and his performance suffers for it. The only casting decisions they seemed to get right in 1962 was including Robert Preston and Pert Kelton, both holdovers from the Broadway production. Preston's contributions have been noted in other reviews here, but I always felt Kelton especially is about the only thing worth watching from the original film. Her snarkiness with Marian is worth being put on film; if only it could have been part of a far better production.When it comes to the original Broadway production, I'm content in believing you had to be there to see it firsthand. The 1962 film just doesn't capture the magic that made "The Music Man" such a huge Broadway hit. While the 2003 version isn't the original, it makes up for it by being far more entertaining and engaging. It is a joy to finally have a film version of "The Music Man" that makes me feel some of the magic I felt watching it that first time in my high school auditorium.

Comparisons between the 1962 and 2003 versions of the Music Man are inevitable. And such comparisons are going to center on the different approaches that Robert Preston and Matthew Broderick used to create the character of Professor Harold Hill. While many critics have dismissed Matthew Broderick's characterization, I believe that these critics have overlooked a significant interpretation of the Music Man. I like both versions of The Music Man, because they complement each other.Robert Preston interpreted Harold Hill as a fast talking con man who doubled as a sort of Pied Piper. He would lead and the town people would follow right along. It is fun to watch, but also a little confusing. Here are all these stubborn, stiff-necked Iowa folk being gullibly conned left and right. One would think that the citizens of River City wouldn't have agreed to the creation of a Boys Band unless there was something else going on.On the other hand, Broderick's Harold Hill is someone who can somehow appeal to a person's innermost wants and dreams. He isn't fast talking; instead he is able to get them to invoke their own dreams and wants, and he is able to do this because he is trying to realize his own frustrated dreams. In contrast to Preston, Broderick underplays Harold Hill and it works.No where is this interpretation more evident than in the "Marian the Librarian" sequence. Preston's Hill creates havoc in the library by behaving like a Pied Piper and everyone else is swept up in the process. Even Shirley Jones' Marian is temporally swept away.Broderick's Hill mesmerizes Kristin Chenoweth's Marian so that she invokes her dream in an unusual interlude in this number. It works because Broderick's Hill isn't trying to con her into something; he is trying to awaken her hopes and dreams.The "Trouble in River City" sequence also highlights this different interpretation of Harold Hill. Robert Preston invokes the atmosphere of a Religious Revival, whereas Broderick jumps from place to place (the barber shop, the ladies hat shop, the street, etc) planting the idea into everyone's head.Once you understand this approach, then other things in the 2003 version of the Music Man make a lot of sense. Unlike the 1962 version where Marian changes her mind because Hill has made Winthrop happy with an instrument; the 2003 version Marian changes her mind because she understands that by realizing Winthop's dreams her brother will come out of his shell. Moreover, in this context, Marian's monologue of why she is glad Hill came to town, even though he is a swindler, makes more sense.Having said all this, the 1962 version is more polished. The editing is crisp. The supporting cast is difficult to beat: Buddy Hackett, Hermonone Gingold, Paul Ford, Ron Howard, and even Mary Wickes!But there are still some things about the 2003 version that I think are superior to the 1962 version. The 1962 version edited the "My White Knight" song, whereas Kristin Chenoweth gives us the full version. The dance sequences in the 1962 version are very tight and invoke a sort of Busby Berkeley production. I prefer the 2003 dance sequences because you actually get to see more of the feet, body, and arm movement that were sacrificed in the 1962 production. One last point, you can understand the lyrics in the 2003 version a lot better.LATER ADDITION: Recently I came across a short film of the original Broadway Production with Robert Preston. I was surprised to see that Robert Preston's original interpretation of Harold Hill actually had more in common with Matthew Broderick's interpretation in this version.

May I say from the outset that I am a fan of both Matthew Broderick & Victor Garber. But having seen the 1961 original with Robert Preston & Shirley Jones I have to say that this remake is in my opinion a big mistake. Remaking a classic movie especially musicals is not always a good idea and this was certainly not a good idea, that is why I have only given it three stars. Apologies to Matthew & Victor.

Don't work

Bought because one of the actors is now a principal at a school and I wanted to see him in that venue.

Don't buy this DVD if you live in the UK, I didn't realise it wouldn't work. Now I've wasted money.

Matthew Broderick in dem amerikanischsten aller Musicals... er schlägt sich super! Die Musik geht einem nicht mehr aus dem Kopf